Skip to main content
4:00 am
4:01 am
>>: >>: >>: good afternoon.david chiu.
4:02 am
to sfgtv. are there any announcements? >>: items acted will appear in the february twelfth item number one.resolution authorizing the director of real estate to record a deed restriction against assessor{s block no. 3571, lot no. 032, for the 17th and folsom streets park project.tony moran.
4:03 am
i manage the capital grants for the recreation department.and folsom. one of the requirements is to file the deed restriction on the property. the deed restriction stipulates that the property will be maintained for outdoor recreation for a period of 30 years. this deed restrictionthe grant to, not really new but formalized. the city and county of seven cisco has open space provisions that protect our property far greater than this the restriction that many properties don't have this type of restriction. so the state is going ahead and moving forward requiring that restriction.
4:04 am
we are asking that you recommend to the board of supervisors to authorize the director of real estate to file the deed restrictionand folsom. >> supervisor wiener: i do have a question. you may not be able to answer. this is a wonderful project. it's an exciting project. i know that there are issues whether there will be a large fence around the project that will physically separated from the surrounding neighborhood. i wonder it has been any discussion so that you can meet the park security needs without physically separating the neighborhood.
4:05 am
maybe you can report to us back later. >>: i am deputy director for park planning. yes there was discussion about the fence that i do not know what the final resolution was but i can get back to you.be large.reduced to be more integrated into the neighborhood. >>: thank you. >>: i will open it up for public comment. i don't see any public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to make a comment? public comment will be two minutes.go ahead.and folsom.
4:06 am
nice to see the city is putting resources into neighborhoods that really need itheights, etc. in terms of the deed restriction i thought it was interesting the idea of offense was mentioned now. it seems to me that in that area it might be worth having some sort of a fense in order to separate certain types of individuals, the police should have some sort of input about whether the fence is fair or not. with regards to new projects in this area of the city, it is long over due and hopefully it will be the type of project that is going to benefit the younger kids rather than the older kids
4:07 am
because they think the younger kids really need the project more than the older kids. i think that should be made clear from policy viewpoint. and also lastly i would like to say that a project like thischange --curse is still prevalent around the city. >> supervisor wiener: other any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing on the public comment is closed. >> supervisor kim: i would like to make a motion to forward that to the board.
4:08 am
>> supervisor wiener: can we take that? motion is approved. item number two. ordinance amending the planning code, section 166, to authorize owners of projects with residential units to elect to provide additional parking spaces >> supervisor wiener: i am the author.chiu wanted to be cosponsor. legislation that will encourage more car sharing availability in san francisco. this legislation was submitted to the planning commission; the planning commission unanimously voted to support it, with amendments that i have included in the legislation. the mta is also in support of the legislation with the same request for amendment and again all have been included. car sharing a critical part of the transportation system.
4:09 am
there are a number of locations for car sharing in san francisco that are disappearing. as we develop service parking lots and gas stations which are some of the most frequent locations forsharing pods, those car sharing spots are gone.be trulyfirst city. we want to make it is easy as possible for people not to have an automobile that they choose not to have one those with private automobiles % biking, there are times that they will rely on cars and so we need car sharing.cars are removed from
4:10 am
the road.always allow for this and can create obstacles to having car sharing spots in residential development. if the developer wants to include car sharing, publicly accessible spots in their projects,spots when counted towards the maximum number, not a good incentive for car sharing. as an example in my district, market, 24 units with 12 parking spots.
4:11 am
include car sharing spots in the developer wanted to include car sharing spots, the developer was unable to do so because they could not afford to remove any of the 12 spots from private automobile parking. this is a disincentive to have car sharing and we need to eliminate that disincentive by allowing car sharing irrespective of the maximum parking ratio. car sharing companies are telling us that they are having real challenges finding available spots. this legislation would allow projects to include a limited number of cars share spaces above and beyond the maximum parking ratio.on constructive feedback that we have received both from the planning commission, the mta and others, we made a number of amendments to the legislation to better advance the intent.
4:12 am
based on the project size,spots that would not count against parking maximums. again it would depend on the size of the project. the legislation and this is a request from the planning llow existing car sharing spots to be retained once the lot gets redeveloped. all car sharing spots created under the legislation must be deed restricted and can never be used for the storage of private automobiles. each spot must also be offered free of charge to a car share organization. if for whatever reason the developer is unable to find organization to use the spot they can be convertedparking
4:13 am
but never to be used for private automobiles. the legislation also facilitates enforcement to facilitate the spots are used for car sharing. signage to be developed by the planning department will need to be installed above the car sharing spots so that is no longer used in that way the report can be made. we are also in preliminary talks with the planning department and the mta. colleagues this legislation ownership and make this a transit first city. if there are no preliminary comments colleaguesstarr from the planning department to speak. >>: good afternoon supervisors. supervisor wiener.starr,
4:14 am
planning department. the planning commission voted unanimously with approval with modificationswiener for including the recommendations. we look forward to working with office on that issue. that concludes my report. i am available for questions. >> supervisor wiener: ms. martin is here from the mta.-- i wanted to follow-up on what aaron said. we had an opportunity to comment and thank you for that and incorporating our comments and we look forward to working with you on the enforcement changes.
4:15 am
>> supervisor wiener: thank you very much. president chiu. >> supervisor chiu: thank you for moving this forward. i'm a member of one of the car sharing organizations in a particular have been very supportiveto in the planning allowing more on the street car sharing opportunities. this particular legislation is another approach which makes a lot of sense. the one thing that i wanted to comment on has to do with the issues surrounding enforcement. i do think that the issue that was raised about how this legislation could potentially create a loophole to allow for additional private spaces in the loss of not enforced is one that i'm concerned about. i appreciate that there is now work to look into how to make changes
4:16 am
to the transportation code. does that require additional board action? what is the next step for that enforcement? from my perspective it is important for me that enforcement is extremely clear. i want to make sure that follows quickly on the heels of whatever we end up passing. >> supervisor wiener: a couple of things.enforcement, that would require additional legislation. we are convening this working group to talk about not just enforcement here but broader code to possibly work toward that end. this legislation specifically requires both signage above each and every car sharing spots the residence no if it is supposed to be car sharing there, and requires the planning department to maintainlist on the website of all developments where there are car sharing
4:17 am
spots serve any member sees that there is no longer a spot there they can report that. i agree it is an issue we are trying to grapple with it.code; the zoning administrator would have to grant authority for the mta to enforce it. and also take a change to the transportation code. those are things that we are still looking at.chiu: is there any question is that would happen or not? >>: they will support it. >>: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: particularly in the larger condominiums,
4:18 am
is there a way to monitor the sites? >>: i would have to leave that to mta to discuss that. we do keep a list of available car sharing sites. we update that regularly. on the legislation is to have a sign on the outside of the buildingspots inside. >> supervisor kim: i am very supportive of the legislation but i share the same concerns, the monitoring and enforcement piece can be hard to do given our capacity and resources. >> supervisor wiener: public education is also important. there was a project in my district no longer being used, the spots were not used for car sharing anymore.did contact my office and filed the complaint with the planning department. >>: will there be penalty fees
4:19 am
scheduled? incorporated as part of this? >>: standard planning code violation fees. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor wiener: if there are no further comment, we will open it up for public comment. do we have any comments?(sounds like). come on up in either order. >>: good afternoon supervisors i'm here speaking on behalf of the sierra club; we oppose this legislation. congestion on city streets.add to the planet contributes to climate change whether internal combustion car or an electric vehicle.20
4:20 am
pounds of greenhouse gases per gallon. so obviously this is a problem for climate change. we have to think about the tipping point and went car gets us to the tipping pointantarctica and greenland. i am reading this book that i recommend to all of you and it does mention san francisco high tide main street. every car you add to the streets add to congestion. share; we think you should work to find spaces on our city streets for that not permitting developers or people who currently own buildings to expand the amount of allowable parking that they have.
4:21 am
one legislative aide told me that owners of buildings and developers get away with things, they continually get conditional use permits to expand the amount of parking they have. that's the problem. we need to halt the problem. we should not be adding more cars to the city streets. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: one thing i did neglect to mention in my opening comments is we wanted the amendment that we added in the request of the planning department is that in order to use the legislation use for your parking spots; you're seeking to go above and beyond your disqualified. your disqualified. your disqualified. president chiu? >> supervisor chiu: from my perspective my support of car sharing is one believing that this is a set of policies that will
4:22 am
your point remove cars off the street and decrease congestion. for every car share that is available in san franciscocars off the street. this is why i think this proposal to get to getcars in different buildings to consider other options makes a lot of sense. i'm trying to reconcile those perspectives, but i look forward to have additional conversations on this with your organization. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker.michael uribe. represent --conversation today. wiener and your staff are taking the lead
4:23 am
on this important issue in san francisco. i am passionate about car sharing for many reasons, one environmental.8-10 vehicles off the road.1100-1600 reduction in personal omissions because of car sharing.members --zip car; this legislation will allow us to serve currently underserved communities by going into otherwise prohibited areas.all, thank you.
4:24 am
>>: thank you very much. any additional public comment? go ahead.hill neighbors. i have signed the student perhaps i didn't understand the point you just made. personally i support car sharing in general. i would be concerned if they were adding spaces to residential buildings that would not be there if it were not for car sharing. car sharing can be put into commercial buildings and hotels in our district and i mentioned thishill neighbors are opposing, and the developer is offering amenities that would support his conditional use, eliminating a senior housing that we are supporting,
4:25 am
an extra car share units. i am bringing that up because maybe what you said it cannot be used in a conditional use but at any rate they're trying to do that. i hope that he could not possiblyback, and offer, which he is trying to do to get his conditional approval. >>: any other comments?douglas -- i would like to speak in opposition to this.jurisdiction so to speak. the city has plenty of problems especially after yesterday's ballgame.what use. there was a comment made orrectly --and
4:26 am
advocate.an advocate. we are supposed to have impartial representation rather than people pushing certain agendas. it sounds strange that people should recuse themselves; i think it is opposite san francisco has gone way downhill, one of the reasons is because of special interests. since we are dealing with land use i would like to make a suggestion that since the 49ers are leaving after next year, you should consider the idea of turning candlestick park into a shopping area;
4:27 am
from what i hear the only people hanging out there are undesirables. >> supervisor wiener: any other members of the public who would like to make a common item two? seeing none public comment is closed. (gavel) colleagues any additional comments? do i have a motion to forward this do i have a motion to forward this with positive recommendation? can we do this without objection?(gavel) item 3. ordinance amending the housing code, section 206, to add section 1002 to the list of retroactive provisions; section 505, to require grab bars in hotel common-use water closets and bathing facilities; section 1002, to include as a substandard housing condition the failure to provide a usable telephone jack and telephone wiring as required by the california civil code; and making
4:28 am
environmental findings, legislative findings, and findings pursuant to california health and safety code, section 17958.5 >>: i wanted to say that this ordinance that we are hearing, land use will make housing safer for many seniors. i once also right from the start say that this is an effort to empower seniors and people who live in single room occupancy hotels and people with disabilities. collaborative actions and many others. it is a wonderful to work with them, about empowering some of the most honorable people.3 i work with many organizations,
4:29 am
grassroots groups.6, 9, chinatown, tenderlon.avalos, supervisor olage.many community-based groups of look at the condition and gave strong concrete recommendations that we are implementing the first part. this is just the first step. the seniors and people with disabilities face increasing challenges. francisco's official policies to support our seniors and aging folks as we age in place. the city has no comprehensive strategy

tv
[untitled]
February 8, 2013 4:00am-4:30am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Mta 5, San Francisco 5, Chiu 3, Folsom 2, California 2, Us 2, Olage 1, Tenderlon 1, Michael Uribe 1, Aaron 1, Douglas 1, Ms. Martin 1, David Chiu 1, Tony Moran 1, Wiener 1, Fense 1, Cisco 1, Itheights 1, Chinatown 1, Avalos 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480